Male Homosexuality and
Transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist Tradition

Excerpted from the book "QUEER DHARMA: VOICES
OF GAY BUDDHISTS" edited by Winston Leyland, ISBN: 0940567229

An earlier version of this article was presented
at a conference in London, England in 1993. Peter A. Jackson

PETER ANTHONY JACKSON Ph.D. (Melbourne, Australia)
was born in Sydney in 1956 and is currently Research Fellow in Thai History
at the Australian National University, Canberra. His books include Buddhadasa:
A Buddhist Thinker for the Modern World (1988), Buddhism, Legitimation
and Conflict: The Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism (1989), and
Dear Uncle Go: Male Homosexuality in Thailand (1995).

1. INTRODUCTION

In the early to mid 1980s the official Thai response to the spread of HIV
infection in that country was characterised by denial and silence. It was
only in the latter years of the decade that the threat HIV/AIDS posed to
public health in Thailand was formally acknowledged by government and public
health officials and that public education campaigns began to be formulated
and implemented. As in many other countries, the initial responses of many
public figures in Thailand to the recognition of the serious issues posed
by the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS were informed more by prejudice and fear
of seropositive people than by reasoned consideration of the evidence on
modes of infection. In this period homosexual men and female prostitutes
were widely condemned as sources of AIDS and threats to public health by
many Thai journalists, politicians, public health officials, Buddhist monks
and other public figures. 1

In my 1995 book Dear Uncle Go: Male Homosexuality in Thailand
I argued that popular Western perceptions of a general tolerance of homosexuality
in Thailand are to an extent inaccurate. While there are no legal or formal
sanctions against homosexuality in Thailand, a wide range of cultural sanctions
operate to stigmatise Thai homosexual men and women. These anti-homosexual
sanctions are diffused throughout Thai Society rather than being focussed
in any clearly definable institution or set of homophobic practices, as
has historically been the case in most Western societies.

However, this situation changed somewhat in the late 1980s. The initial
"shock-horror" response to AIDS provided a focus for the previously diffuse
anti-homosexual sentiments as homosexual men were publicly labelled as
the "source" or "origin" (Thai : tonhet) of HIV infection in Thailand.
A number of Buddhist writers were involved in this stigmatisation of homosexual
men, drawing on Buddhist teachings to construct arguments against homosexuality
that contributed to the fear and angst surrounding much public discussion
of HIV/AIDS in the country in the late 1980s.

In this article I consider the background to some Thai Buddhists' anti-homosexual
arguments by reviewing scriptural and doctrinal references to homoeroticism
in the Thai Buddhist tradition. I begin by describing accounts of male
homoeroticism in the Thai language translation of the Tipitaka,
the canonical scriptures of Theravada Buddhism, noting, firstly, divergences
in ethical judgments made on homosexuality in the canon and, secondly,
similarities between scriptural descriptions of pandaka (Thai: bandor)
and the popular Thai notion of the kathoey (transvestite, transsexual,
male homosexual). Ethical attitudes presented in the canon are reproduced
in many contemporary Thai Buddhist commentators' discussions of homosexuality
and an appreciation of the ancient scriptural accounts is important in
understanding views on homosexuality that are now represented as being
sanctioned by religious authority.

I then consider traditional Thai accounts which propose that homosexuality
arises as a kammic consequence of violating Buddhist proscriptions against
heterosexual misconduct. These kammic accounts describe homosexuality as
a congenital condition which cannot be altered, at least in a homosexual
person's current lifetime, and have been linked with calls for compassion
and understanding from the non-homosexual populace.

Lastly, I mention more recent Thai Buddhist accounts from the late 1980s
that described homosexuality as a wilful violation of "natural" (hetero)sexual
conduct resulting from lack of ethical control over sexual impulses. These
accounts presented homosexuality as antithetical to Buddhist ideals of
self-control and were associated with vehement anti-homosexual rhetoric
and vociferous attacks on male homosexual behaviour as the purported origin
of HIV/AIDS.

2. REFERENCES TO MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE THERAVADA SCRIPTURES

The Pali canon of Theravada Buddhism contains numerous references to sexual
behaviour that today would be identified as homoerotic and to individuals
who would be called homosexual and transvestites. However, as would be
expected of a series of texts composed over two milennia ago in a non-European
culture, sexual categories found in the Pali canon do not match contemporary
notions of homosexuality or of homosexual people. Most notedly, the canon
does not clearly distinguish between homosexuality from cross-gender behaviour
such as transvestism. Nevertheless while not being given a single, distinctive
name, male-male sex is referred to in many places in the Vinayapitaka
, 2 the monastic code
of conduct, being listed amongst the many explicitly described forms of
sexual activity which are proscribed for monks. As Leonard Zwilling (1992:203)
states, we
should not expect any term with the precise connotation
of homosexuality to appear in Buddhist literature. However, homosexual
behaviour stemming from an apparent disposition to seek sexual gratification
through relations with members of one's own sex in preference to the other
did not go unnoticed . . .
Indeed, careful exegesis of the references in the Vinayapitaka can
provide us with insights into early Buddhist attitudes towards homoeroticism.
It is important, however, that Theravada Buddhist accounts of homosexuality
are understood in the context of the religion's general disdain of sexuality
and distrust of sensual enjoyment. It is also important to keep in mind
that Buddhism began as an order of celibate male renunciates, the sangha,
and that the Vinaya is predominantly a clerical not a lay code of
conduct.

Theravada Buddhism's Anti-Sex Attitude

In Buddhism all forms of sexuality and desire must be transcended in order
to attain the religious goal of nibbana, literally, the extinction
of suffering. The first section of the Tipitaka, 3
the Parajika Kandha of the Vinayapitaka , provides detailed
guidelines on the practice of clerical celibacy in the form of often explicit
examples of the types of sexual misconduct which lead to "spiritual defeat"
(parajika) and automatic expulsion from the sangha. To quote
an often repeated formula in this section of the Vinaya, "Whichever
monk has sexual intercourse is parajika, a defeated one, and will
not find communion [in the sangha]" (VinayaVol. 1, p. 27,
passim). The definition of sexual intercourse (methunadhamma)
given in the Vinaya reflects the strong distaste for sex within
the early Buddhist tradition,
That which is called methunadhamma is explained
as: the dhamma of an unrighteous man (asattapurisa), the
conduct of the common people, the manners of the low, dhamma which
is evil and crude, dhamma whose end is but water, an activity which
should be hidden, the dhamma which couples should perform together.
(Vinaya, Vol. 1, p.49)
The precision with which monks' conduct is monitored is shown in the canonical
definition of "perform" in the expression "to perform sexual intercourse"
which is described as a monk inserting his penis into a vagina, mouth,
anus, etc. "even if only as far as the width of a sesame seed" (Vinaya,
Vol. 1, p. 49).

The extreme imagery evoked in the Buddha's denunciation of a monk who
was found to have kept and trained a female monkey to have sex with him,
denunciation whose core descriptions of hell are repeated in the condemnation
of several other forms of clerical sexual misconduct, graphically portrays
the kammic consequences that were believed to follow from a monk's violation
of his vow of celibacy or brahmacariya,

Behold O worthless man (moghapurisa), the penis
you insert into the mouth of a poisonous snake is yet better than the penis
you insert into the vagina of a female monkey. It is not good. The penis
you insert into the mouth of a cobra is yet better than the penis you insert
into the vagina of a female monkey. It is not good. The penis you insert
into a pit of blazing coals is yet better than the penis you insert into
the vagina of a female monkey. It is not good.

For what reason do I say the mentioned points are better?
Because the man who inserts his penis into the mouth of a poisonous snake,
and so on, even if he dies or suffers to the point of death because of
that action . . . , after death and the dissolution of his body will not
enter the state of loss and woe (apaya), the states of unhappiness
(duggati), the place of suffering (vinipata), hell (naraka).
As for the man who inserts his penis into the vagina of a female monkey,
after death and the dissolution of his body, he will enter the state of
loss and woe, the states of unhappiness, the place of suffering, hell (Vinaya,
Vol. 1, p. 29).

According to the canon, sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) should
be avoided by the pious laity as well as by monks and nuns. On early Buddhist
attitudes to lay sexuality, Zwilling (1992:207) observes,
Buddhist tradition essentially conceives of sexual misconduct
in terms of sexual relations with various types of prohibited women (agamya)
and the performance of non-procreative sexual acts. Among the commentators
only Buddhaghosa4
and the anonymous author of the commentary to the Abhidharmasamuccaya
include men among forbidden sexual objects.
In Thailand lay sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) has traditionally
been glossed as phit mia khon eun, "violating another person's wife,"
or as phit phua-mia khon eun, "violating another person's spouse
(husband or wife)". Homosexual activity between laypersons has traditionally
fallen outside the scope of kammically significant sexual misconduct in
Thailand.

Most contemporary Thai Buddhist writers follow early Buddhist attitudes
and describe sex as extremely distasteful, even for the laity. One Thai
writer on Buddhism, Isaramuni, equates sexuality with tanha (Thai:
khwam-yak—craving or desire) and raga (Thai: kamnat—sexual
lust), which are the antithesis of the Buddhist ideal of dispassionate
equanimity (Isaramuni 1989:4). And while the Vinaya in general
details an explicitly clerical code of conduct, similar anti-sex attitudes
are now expressed in many Thai Buddhist writers' discussions of lay sexual
ethics. In a discourse on married life Phra Buddhadasa,5 an influential reformist thinker, calls
reproduction "an activity that is distasteful, dirty and tiring" (Buddhadasa
1987:24) and says that sexual desire is a defilement (Pali: kilesa)
that arises from ignorance (Pali: avijja), which Buddhist doctrine
generally describes as the source of human suffering. Phra Buddhadasa
says that in the past people were "employed" or "engaged" (Thai: jang)
by nature in the "work" (Thai: ngan) of reproducing the species,
but people now "cheat" nature by using contraception and having sex without
being engaged in the work of reproduction. He maintains that this "cheating,"
i.e. engaging in sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, is "paid back"
because it causes problems such as nervous disorders, madness and physical
deformities (ibid. :25).

Phra Buddhadasa calls on laypeople to be mindful and establish
spiritually informed intelligence (Pali: sati-panna) and to have
sex only for reproduction. Furthermore, he maintains that the highest ideal
in marriage is to live together without sex, describing the solitary life
dedicated to the achievement of nibbana as a higher ideal than married
life (ibid. :35). Indeed, Phra Buddhadasa maintains that marriage
is a stage of life for those who have not yet realised absolute truth,
saying that once the inherent transience and unsatisfactoriness of the
world is understood there will be no more desire for sex. He provides an
example from the Tipitaka (no source cited) of ten year old children
in the Buddha's time becoming arahants, perfected beings who have
achieved nibbana, and maintains that this would be possible today
if children were educated in Buddhist principles and led to see the truth
revealed by Buddhism. Phra Buddhadasa adds that as adults such children
would have no interest in sex because of their high spiritual status (ibid.
:36-37).

Significantly, contemporary Thai Buddhist views on laypersons' sexual
behaviour are often more proscriptive and extreme than attitudes reflect
in the Pali canon or in traditional or popular Thai accounts of Buddhist
doctrine and ethics. Phra Buddhadasa's work has been especially
influential among educated and middle class Thai Buddhists. However, his
views on sexuality are at variance with Thai Buddhism's traditional distinction
between lay and clerical ethical conduct. The ethical extremism of Phra
Buddhadasa and other contemporary Buddhist reformists in Thailand such
as Phra Phothirak results from a clericalising trend whereby ethical
demands traditionally made only of monks are now increasingly also being
required of laypersons. The much publicised asceticism and celibacy of
the prominent political figure and strict Buddhist Major-General Chamlong
Srimuang, epitomises the monastic regimen that some contemporary reform
movements within Thai Buddhism (e.g. Santi Asoke) require of their devout
lay followers.

Heterosexuality and Homosexuality as Equivalent Defilements

In the context of Buddhism's general anti-sex attitude, the Vinayapitaka
often describes homosexuality in terms that place it on a par with heterosexuality.
But this ethical equivalence is negative, with heterosexuality and homosexuality
being described as equally repugnant sources of suffering and as constituting
equivalent violations of clerical celibacy. The Vinaya identifies
not two but four gender types, proscribing monks from having sexual relations
with any of these four. The four gender types are male, female, ubhatobyanjanaka
and pandaka. The latter two Pali terms are used to refer to different
things in different sections of the canon and I attempt to define them
precisely in the next section. But broadly it can be said that ubhatobyanjanaka6 refers to hermaphrodites, while pandaka7 refers to male transvestites and homosexuals.
The Vinaya lists those sexual activities with men, women, pandaka
and ubhatobyanjanaka that entail spiritual defeat and a monk's automatic
expulsion from the order. These proscribed sexual activities are:

Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with a female human, non-human (i.e.
an immaterial being) or animal;

Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with an ubhatobyanjanaka human,
non-human or animal;

Anal or oral intercourse8
with a pandaka human, non-human or animal; and

Anal or oral intercourse with a male human, non-human or animal.

Considering proscribed sexual activities with each gender type in detail,
the Vinaya then lists twenty-seven types of sexual intercourse with
a human female which entail spiritual defeat. These are: anal, vaginal
and oral sex with a waking or sleeping woman, a drunk woman, a mentally
deranged woman or a woman with a nervous disorder, an intellectually deficient
woman, a dead woman, a dead woman whose body has not yet been eaten by
animals and a woman whose body has been gnawed at by animals (Vinaya,
Vol. 1, pp. 53-69). These same examples of proscribed sexual conduct are
then repeated for the three other gender categories, with vaginal sex being
deleted from the lists of proscribed sexual acts between monks and pandaka
and males.

Together with bestiality (see "The Case of the Female Monkey," Vinaya,
vol. 1, p. 27), necrophilia (see "The Two Cases of Open Sores [in Dead
Bodies]," Vinaya, Vol. 1, pp. 221-222) and sex with inanimate objects
(see "The Case of the Moulded Image," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 222 and
"The Case of the Wooden Doll," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 222), the Vinaya
also proscribes a range of homoerotic or strictly speaking autoerotic forms
of sexual activity such as auto-fellatio (see "The Case of the Nimble-backed
Monk," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 221) and auto-sodomy (see "The Case of
the Monk with a Long Penis," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 221).

In the Vinaya's listings of proscribed sexual activities, sex
between monks and the various categories of women, hermaphrodites, transvestites,
men, dead bodies, animals and inanimate objects are all described in equivalent
terms, none being presented as any more morally reprehensible than any
other and all entailing spiritual defeat, although sex with inanimate objects
was regarded as a lesser infraction entailing penance but not expulsion
from the sangha. However, elsewhere in the Vinaya and in
other sections of the Tipitaka it is made clear that ubhatobyanjanaka
and pandaka are spiritually and ritually inferior to men, often
being compared with women and criminals. But before reviewing these scriptural
references I first consider in detail the definitions of the Pali terms
ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka and their relationship to the
Thai notion of kathoey.

Defining Ubhatobyanjanaka, Pandaka and Kathoey

The Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary defines ubhatobyanjanaka
as "Haying the characteristics of both sexes, hermaphrodite" (Rhys Davids
1975:154) and the reformist Thai Buddhist writer Phra Ratchaworamuni 9
provides a similar definition in his Dictionary of Buddhist Teachings,
namely, "Beings with the genital organs of both sexes" (Ratchaworamuni
1984:435). Khamhuno, author of a weekly newsmagazine column on Buddhist
affairs, has defined ubhatobyanjanaka in Thai as kathoey thae
or "true kathoeys" (Khamhuno 1989:37), that is, hermaphrodites.
However, Bunmi Methangkun, head of the traditionalist Abhidhamma Foundation,
indicates that psychological as well as physiological factors are involved
when, following the Abhidhammapitaka (no reference cited), 10
he describes two types of hermaphrodites, namely, female (Pali: itthi-ubhatobyan
janaka) and male (Pali: purisa-ubhatobyanjanaka). According
to Bunmi, an itthi-ubhatobyanjanaka is physically female, including
having normal female genitals, but when physically attracted to another
woman,
her previously female mind disappears and changes instead
into the mind of a man, and at the same time male genitals appear while
her female genitals disappear and she is able to have sexual intercourse
with that woman. (Note: "to disappear" here does not mean that she does
not have [female genitals any more].) (Bunmi 1986:238)
A purisa-ubhatobyanjanaka is the opposite of the above, that is,
someone who is physiologically male but when sexually attracted to another
man loses his masculinity and takes on the mental characteristics and physical
features of a woman so that he is able to have heterosexual relations with
the man who arouses him (Bunmi 1986:238-239)11
Bunmi goes onto say that male and female hermaphrodites are primarily distinguishable
as follows,
An itthi-ubhatobyanjanaka person is herself able
to become pregnant to a man and can also make another woman pregnant but
a purisa-ubhatobyanjanaka person cannot himself become pregnant
even though he can make a woman pregnant. (Bunmi 1986:239).
In an interesting precursor to the modern distinction between sexual orientation
and biological sex, Buddhaghosa describes the hermaphroditism of the ubhatobyanjanaka
as arising from a dissonance between the masculine and feminine "power"
(indriya) of an individual and their sexual organs (byanjana).
He describes masculine and feminine behaviours as respectively arising
from the "power of masculinity" (purusindriya) and the "power of
femininity" (itthindriya). However, he maintains that these powers
are not the cause of the male and female sexual organs and goes on to describe
ubhatobyanjanaka as persons with the body of one gender but the
"power" of the other. As Zwilling correctly observes (1992:206), in this
account Buddhaghosa does not in fact describe hermaphroditism but rather
bisexuality or homosexuality.

A famous scriptural example of such a sex-changing ubhatobyanjanaka
is the case of a wealthy man named after his home town of Soreyya that
is recorded in the Dhammapadatthakatha the commentary on the Dhammapada.
The Sri Lankan scholar Malalasekera summarises the Soreyya legend as follows,

Once when he [Soreyya] and a friend with a large retinue
were driving out of the city to bathe, he saw Maha Kaccayana [a prominent
disciple of the Buddha] adjusting his robe before entering the city for
alms. Soreyya saw the Elder's body, and wished that he could make him his
wife or that his wife's body might become in colour like the Elder's. Immediately
Soreyya turned into a woman and, hiding from his companions, went with
a caravan bound for Takkasila. Arriving at Takkasila, he became the wife
of the Treasurer of that city and had two sons. He already had two sons
in Soreyya born to him before his transformation. Some time after, he saw
his former friend driving in a carriage through Takkasila and, sending
a slave-woman to him, invited him to the house and entertained him. The
friend was unable to recognise him till he revealed the truth. Thereupon
they both returned to Soreyya and invited Maha Kaccayana to a meal. Soreyya
fell at his feet, confessed his fault, and asked for forgiveness. When
the Elder pardoned him he once more became a man. He entered the order
under the Elder and went with him to Savitthi. There people having heard
of his story worried him with questions. He therefore retired into solitude
and, developing insight, became an arahant. Before that when people asked
him which of his children he loved best he would say, "Those to whom I
gave birth while a woman," but after attaining arahantship he would say,
"My affections are set on no one" (Malalasekera 1960:13l1-1312)
Definitions of pandaka are more diverse than those provided for
ubhatobyanjanaka. The Pali English Dictionary defines a pandaka
as "A eunuch, weakling" (Rhys Davids 1975:404), while the Thai translation
of the Vinaya provides the definition, "a kathoey, a castrated
man or eunuch" (Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 768).12
Suchip Punyanuphap, author of a comprehensive Thai language summary of
the forty-five volumes of the Tipitaka, equates pandaka with
kathoey and defines both in behavioural and psychological rather
than physiological terms as, "a person who takes pleasure in having relations
with a man while feeling that they are like a woman" (Suchip 1982:224n).
Khamhuno says that pandaka are people who have abnormal sexual feelings,
whether homosexual, sado-masochistic, etc., while ubhatobyanjanaka
denotes physical kathoeys, i.e. hermaphrodites (Khamhuno 1989:37).
Bunmi says that a pandaka is "a person who has a deficiency in the
signs of masculinity [for men] or femininity [for women] (Bunmi 1986:235)13 and goes on to describe five types of
pandaka identfied in the Abhidhammapitaka (no reference cited).14 However, only one of these five types
matches his own definition of showing deficiencies in either masculinity
or femininity. The five types of pandaka Bunmi lists are:

asittakapandaka—A man who gains sexual satisfaction from performing
oral sex on another man and from ingesting his semen, or who only becomes
sexually aroused after having ingested another man's semen (ibid. :235-236).

ussuyapandaka—A voyeur, a man or woman who gains sexual satisfaction
merely from watching a man and a woman having sex (ibid. :236).

opakkamikapandaka—Eunuchs, that is, castrated men lacking complete
sexual organs. Unlike the other four types of pandaka Bunmi describes,
these men attain their condition after birth and are not born as pandaka
(ibid.:236).15

pakkhapandaka—PeopIe who by the force of past misdeeds become sexually
aroused in parallel with the phases of the moon, either becoming sexually
aroused during the two week period of the waning moon (Pali: kalapakkha)
and ceasing to be sexually aroused during the fortnight of the waxing moon
(Pali: junhapakkha) or, conversely, becoming sexually aroused during
the period of the waxing moon and ceasing to be sexually aroused during
the period of the waning moon (ibid.:236).16

napumsakapandaka (also sometimes called simply napumsaka)—A person
with no clearly defined genitals, whether male or female, having only a
urinary tract (ibid. :237). Another definition of a napumsaka given
by Bunmi is, "a [male] person who is not able to engage in activities like
a man" (ibid. :239). Elsewhere Bunmi adds that napumsakapandaka
are born without any genital organs as punishment for having castrated
animals in a past life (ibid. :267).17

Bunmi also notes that "lower level" spirits such as thewada (Pali:
devata) and pretasurakai (Pali: preta-asurakaya),
which he collectively calls phi-sang-thewada, can also be kathoeys,
in this case using the Thai term kathoey to include both the Pali
categories of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka (ibid. :255).

Contemporary Thai accounts of ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka
are complicated by the tendency of authors to identify both these groups
as kathoeys and to use this Thai term interchangeably with the Pali
terms. Different Thai authors use the term kathoey to refer to at
least four distinct conditions covering a diverse range of physical, psychological
and emotional phenomena that are now usually separated out into biological
sex (hermaphroditism), psychological gender (transvestism and transsexualism)
and sexuality (homosexuality). Originally kathoey appears to have
referred to true hermaphrodites. However, it has come to be used more broadly
to refer to people who are believed to possess or take on physical, behavioural
or attitudinal characteristics generally ascribed to the opposite sex.
The complex of phenomena referred to by the term kathoey reflects
Thai cultural norms of masculinity and femininity and notions of appropriate
sex roles, gender behaviour and sexuality. Kathoey denotes a type
of person not simply a type of behaviour and in different contexts can
include one or more of the following groups:

Hermaphrodites (Pali: ubhatobyanjanaka; Thai: kathoey thae
or "true kathoeys"): that is, people who to a greater or lesser
degree are either born with or at some time after birth naturally develop
physical characteristics of both sexes. Hermaphrodites also include people
born without any clearly determinable sex (Pali: napumsakapandaka
).

Transvestites and Transsexuals (Pali: pandaka, itthi- & purisa-ubhato
byanjanaka; Thai: kathoey thiam or "pseudo-kathoeys"): that
is, people who are physically male or female but prefer either to dress
and behave as a member of the opposite sex or, in the case of transsexuals,
to undergo hormone treatment and/or surgery in order to change their body
to more closely approximate the physical features of a person of the opposite
sex. In the Pali canon transsexualism is described as a spontaneous change
of sex caused purely by psychological factors and not requiring medical
intervention.

Homosexuals (Pali: pandaka; Thai: variously, kathoey, gay,
tut, etc. for men; kathoeys, tom, dee, etc., for women):
that is, people who are physically male or female and are sexually attracted
to people of their own sex.

The term kathoey includes homosexuals because in Thailand homosexuality,
on the model of hermaphroditism, is popularly regarded as resulting from
a psychological mixing of genders. That is, within the Thai cultural context
a male homosexual is commonly regarded as having a woman's mind and a woman's
sexual desires and a lesbian is regarded as having a man's mind and a man's
sexual desires. The blending of genders denoted in the term kathoey
may thus be solely physical, solely an imputed psychological mixing, or
a combination of both.

The Thai term kathoey is derivationally unrelated to the Pali
scriptural terms it is commonly used to translate, suggesting an indigenous
pre-Buddhist conception of abnormal gender/sexuality. The Thai peoples
adopted Theravada Buddhism around the eleventh and twelfth centuries of
the Christian era. But whether or not Buddhism has been instrumental in
influencing the development of the popular Thai notion, a very similar
mixing of physical and psychological sex, gender behaviours and sexuality
occurs both in the Pali terms pandaka and in the Thai term kathoey.
Both terms are parts of conceptual schemes in which people regarded as
exhibiting physiological or culturally ascribed features of the opposite
sex are categorised together. If Buddhism was not the source of the popular
Thai conception of kathoey then at the very least it has reinforced
a markedly similar pre-existing Thai cultural concept.

Several points emerge from the diversity of definitions for ubhatobyanjanaka,
pandaka and kathoey:
Firstly, the mix of sexual and gender phenomena denoted by the terms
ubhatobyanjanaka, pandaka and kathoey are lumped together
because in both the canonical Buddhist and traditional Thai views they
represented an assumed continuum of sex/gender imbalance, from the solely
physical (hermaphroditism) to the psycho-physical (transvestism, transsexualism)
and the solely psychological (homosexuality).

Secondly, what further united the diverse physiological, psychological
and behavioural categories brought together under these terms is the assumption,
detailed further below, that all have a common kammic origin in heterosexual
misconduct in a past life. Indeed, the issue of the origin of homosexuality
dominates contemporary discussions of the topic by Thai Buddhist commentators
and, as described in detail in the following sections, this has important
implications for Buddhist ethical pronouncements on homosexuality.

Thirdly, ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka denote types of
people rather than types of behaviour and are primarily gender categories—denoting
assumed deficiencies or aberrations in masculinity or femininity—rather
than categories that denote sexuality. This is shown by the fact that the
Vinaya in places refers to homosexual behaviour between monks who
are not identified as being either ubhatobyanjanaka or pandaka
That is, homosexuality is not the central defining feature of these two
categories. But having said this, it is still the case that the aberrant
gender of ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka people is generally
assumed to imply that they engage in homosexual behaviour.

The traditional sense of the Thai term kathoey also appears to
have focussed primarily on assumed gender aberration as defining a type
of person and only secondarily on homosexual behaviour. However, the diffuseness
of many contemporary Thai discussions of pandaka appears to result
not only from the diverse range of phenomena referred to by the term in
the Pali scriptures but also from a recent shift from assumed gender imbalance
to homosexuality as the defining characteristic of a kathoey individual.
This recent semantic shift in Thailand—to regard homosexual behaviour as
much as cross-gender attributes as defining some persons' individuality—is
still in process and older, gender-focussed readings of the term kathoey
co-exist with the newer emphasis on sexuality. Nevertheless, the extent
of the semantic shift that has taken place in the past two or three decades
can be seen from the fact that kathoey is now commonly used by heterosexuals
as a derogatory term for any homosexual man even when that man is not effeminate
and does not cross-dress.18

This shift in the sense of kathoey, together with the common
tendency to use this word to translate the Pali term pandaka, leads
many contemporary Thai commentators to read the Buddhist scriptures as
referring to "homosexuals" in the modern sense of the term. For example,
in his article "Gays Appear in sangha Circles" Khamhuno uses the
Pali, Thai and English terms pandaka, bandor and gay
interchangeably to mean homosexual men (Khamhuno 1989:37). This represents
an important shift in the reading of the term pandaka. Many ethical
judgments made of pandaka in the Vinaya (see below) relate
primarily to the transgression of ascribed gender roles for men and women.
However, when kathoeys is understood to mean "homosexual" or "gay"
and pandaka is translated by kathoey then scriptural judgments
on pandaka are read as referring to homosexuality or gayness whether
or not these are associated with cross-gender behaviour. In other words,
early Buddhist pronouncements on one phenomenon—cross-gender behaviour—are
now widely read in Thailand as referring to another, distinct phenomenon—homosexuality
or gayness.

Attitudes to Pandaka and Ubhatobyanjanaka in the Tipitaka

It is difficult to discern a single distinct ethical position on homosexual
behaviour in the Pali canon. The Vinaya proscribes all intentional
sexual activity for monks and in this regard makes no distinction between
heterosexual or homosexual activity. There are some cases in the Vinaya
where ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka are regarded tolerantly,
being treated no differently from other people. Yet there are also other
cases where they appear to be discriminated against. However, it is not
always easy to determine whether it is these individuals' cross-gender
behaviour or their homosexuality which is tolerated or criticised in the
different references, as the two issues of gender and sexuality were not
conceptually distinguished in the canon. But given the tendency of some
contemporary Thai authors to read these references as in fact making judgments
on homosexuality it is important that they be considered in some detail
in order to understand the impact of religious teachings on attitudes today.

The Vinaya does not appear to contain any explicit ethical pronouncements
on the behaviour of lay pandaka or ubhatobyanjanaka. Furthermore,
the Theravada scriptures and related commentary literature are not consistent
in their ethical judgments of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka
within the sangha, recording attitudes varying from the accepting
and compassionate to the unaccepting and discriminatory. What appears to
determine the Buddha's described attitude in different cases is not the
individual pandaka's or ubhatobyanjanaka's different gender
or sexual interests as such, but rather how openly he/she reveals his/her
difference and whether their condition was known before they were ordained
into the sangha or was only discovered after ordination. In general,
the Buddha was more tolerant of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka
who were less open about their difference and whose condition was only
discovered after ordination.

Furthermore, canonical attitudes to pandaka in particular appear
to have developed over time as the Buddha attempted to ensure that the
newly formed sangha remained respectable in the eyes of the public
of his time. As reported in the canon, attitudes to pandaka in the
sangha developed in response to incidents of public criticism as
much as in response to any application of general ethical principles. In
trying to avoid being seen as disreputable in the eyes of lay society in
ancient India, the early sangha appears to have absorbed, codified
and institutionalised prevailing antagonistic attitudes to pandaka.
As Richard Gombrich notes,

Whenever the Buddha is represented as disapproving of
something, he says that it is not conducive to increasing the number of
believers. He then pronounces a rule, for which he gives a stock list of
ten reasons. They can be summarised as the protection and convenience of
the sangha, the moral purity of its members, increase in the number
of believers and the good of non-believers. This, we might say, epitomises
the Buddhist view (at least in the Theravada tradition) of how Buddhism
relates to society. Nor is this empty rhetoric: the occasions for promulgating
rules are frequently lay dissatisfaction (Gombrich 1988:90).
In following sections I detail how attitudes recorded in the canon prefigure
contemporary Thai Buddhist accounts of homosexuality on at least two main
counts. Firstly, canonical divergences permit a variety of contemporary
accounts of homosexuality—ranging from the compassionate if condescending
to the discriminatory—to be presented as authoritative Buddhist pronouncements
on the issue. Secondly, the Buddha's own social pragmatism on the issue
of the sangha's treatment of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka
monks parallels inconsistencies in the writings of some modern reformist
Thai Buddhist thinkers who have developed progressive and compassionate
analyses of social issues such as poverty and the impact of rapid social
change on village life but who remain steadfastly antagonistic on the issue
of homosexuality.

Instances of Scriptural Tolerance of Pandaka

There are a number of scriptural examples of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka
being tolerated within the sangha, in some cases becoming honoured
members of the order respected for their high levels of spiritual attainment.
The Vinaya describes cases of ordained monks changing gender and
taking on the physical characteristics of women and, conversely, of ordained
nuns changing gender to take on the physical characteristics of men. When
these cases were brought to the Buddha's attention he is reported as saying
that he had approved their ordinations and they had maintained the rainy
season retreat (Pali: vassa, Thai: phansa) of the sangha,
that is, they had demonstrated their worthiness as members of the sangha.
He then gives permission for the monk who became a woman to live with the
order of nuns and follow the nuns' code of conduct, and for the nun who
became a man to live with the order of monks and follow the monks' code
of conduct (Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 220). Commenting on this liberal
pronouncement, Bunmi laments, "But in the present time who will be the
judge if a monk changes into a woman? There are no longer any nuns for
such a person to go and live with" (Bunmi 1986:255). That is, given that
the order of Theravada Buddhist nuns fell into decay in early medieval
India and for technical reasons cannot be reconstituted in modern Thailand, 19
it is no longer possible for the Buddha's liberal pronouncement to be followed.

The commentary literature also contains a number of legends and stories
of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka being accepted within the
sangha. The previously described account of Soreyya is a case in
point. In particular, the scriptural claim that Soreyya ultimately attained
arahantship would appear to contradict the view held by some contemporary
Thai Buddhists that homosexuals are constitutionally incapable of achieving
nibbana or other high spiritual attainments. Bunmi for one opposes
this view and provides scriptural support for a compassionate and accepting
stance on homosexuality by citing scriptural references to spiritually
eminent and respected pandaka and by equating pandaka with
kathoey, which he in turn identifies with gay or homosexual. Bunmi
refers to the Abhidhammapitaka (no reference cited) as stating that
Ananda, the Buddha's first cousin and personal attendant, had been born
as a kathoey in many previous lives (Bunmi 1986:261). Prasok, a
newspaper columnist writing on Buddhism,20
also refers to this scriptural account, saying,

In previous existences Phra Ananda, the Buddha's
personal attendant, had been a gay or kathoey for many hundreds
of lives. In his last life he was born as a full man who was ordained and
was successful in achieving arahantship three months after the Buddha attained
nibbana. The reason he was born a kathoey was because in
a previous life he had committed the sin of adultery. This led to him stewing
in hell for tens of thousands of years. After he was freed from hell a
portion of his old kamma still remained and led to him being reborn
as a kathoey for many hundreds of lives (Prasok 1989:10).
Malalasekera cites the Dhammapadatthakatha, the Dhammapada
Commentary, which describes Ananda's various previous existences, as the
source of this story and gives the following apparently bowdlerised summary,
When Ananda was born as a blacksmith he sinned with
the wife of another man. As a result he suffered in hell for a long time
and was born for fourteen existences as someone's wife,21 and it was seven existences more before
his evil deed was exhausted (Malalasekera 1960:267-268).
The case of Vakkali noted by the lay Buddhist author and academic, Sathienpong
Wannapok, provides further evidence of the non-canonicity of the contemporary
Thai view that homosexuals are incapable of following the Buddha's teachings
or of achieving the "fruits of the path." In his article, "When Gays See
the Dhamma," Sathienpong relates his version of the Vakkali legend
to provide scriptural support for the position that gay men can achieve
enlightenment by renouncing their sexual desire in the same way as heterosexuals
and that homosexuals and heterosexuals are no different spiritually. Sathienpong
begins by noting that in the commentaries on the Tipitaka (no reference
cited) those who saw the Buddha and subsequently developed faith in his
teachings are divided into four categories:

rupapamanika (variously spelt rupappamanika)—literally "measuring
[significance] by form," that is, those who developed faith because of
attraction to the Buddha's impressive physical appearance, including his
"radiant coppery complexion" (Sathienpong 1987:59).

ghosapamanika (variously spelt ghosappamanika)—those who
were impressed by the Buddha's voice and developed faith.

lukhapamanika (variously spelt lukhappamanika)—those who
were impressed by the simplicity of the Buddha's way of life and so developed
faith.

dhammapamanika (variously spelt dhammappamanika)—those who
were impressed by the Buddha's teachings and consequently developed faith.

Sathienpong says many men in the rupapamanika category were so taken
by the Buddha's physical appearance that their attraction to his "handsomeness"
was the prime reason they gave up their worldly lives to follow the sangha's
ascetic practices, adding that in modern terms men in this category would
be called gay. Significantly, men described as rupapamanika are
not otherwise described as being ubhatobyanjanaka or pandaka.
That is, rupapamanika denotes a man with no deficiency in his masculine
characteristics who was attracted to the Buddha's physical appearance and
became an ordained monk.

In the version of the legend related by Sathienpong,22 Vakkali was the son of a Brahmin from
Savitthi and was so impressed by the Buddha's physical appearance that
he sought ordination. But after being ordained he did not undertake the
normal monastic activities, instead spending his time following the Buddha
everywhere so that he could look at him. One day when Vakkali was staring
unblinkingly at the Buddha, the Buddha castigated him, asking what he was
looking for "in this stinking rotten body? Anyone who sees the dhamma
has seen the Buddha and anyone who has seen the Buddha has seen the dhamma"
(Sathienpong 1987:60). The Buddha then ordered Vakkali out of his presence.
Vakkali was so shattered by this command that he attempted to kill himself
by jumping off a mountain. But deva or spiritual beings informed
the Buddha of Vakkali's dejection and he quickly went to the monk's aid
in time to save him from committing suicide. With an extremely brief exposition
of the dhamma, "The eyes see dhamma," the Buddha gave Vakkali
the insight he needed in order to attain enlightenment and he immediately
attained arahantship.

Instances of Scriptural Discrimination Against Pandaka and
Ubhatobyanjanaka

The scriptures describe the Buddha as expressing a compassionate attitude
towards people who began to show cross-gender characteristics after ordination
and to those who, while attracted to members of the same sex, were regarded
as being physiologically and behaviourally true to the then prevailing
cultural notions of masculinity. However, the Buddha opposed accepting
into the sangha those who openly expressed cross-gender features
at the time they presented for ordination. Volume Four of the Vinaya
recounts a story of a pandaka who violated the clerical vow of celibacy
and whose bad example led to a comprehensive ban on the ordination of pandaka.
This story is interesting on a number of counts and I reproduce it in full
below.

The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of
Pandaka

At that time a Pandaka had been ordained in a residence
of monks. He went to the young monks and encouraged them thus, 'Come all
of you and assault23 me."
The monks spoke aggressively, "Pandaka, you will surely be ruined.
pandaka, you will surely be [spiritually] destroyed. Of what benefit
will it be?" Having been spoken to aggressively by the monks, he went to
some large, stout novices and encouraged them thus, "Come all of you and
assault me." The novices spoke aggressively. "Pandaka, you will
surely be ruined. Pandaka, you will surely be destroyed. Of what
benefit will it be?" Having been spoken to aggressively by the novices,
the pandaka went to men who tend elephants and horses and spoke
to them thus. "Come all of you and assault me."24
The men who tend elephants and horses assaulted him and then publicly blamed,
rebuked and criticised [the sangha], saying, "A samana of
the lineage of the son of the Sakyas is a pandaka and these samanas,
even those who are not pandakas themselves, assault the ordained
pandakas. When such is the case these samanas are not practising
brahmacariya (celibacy)." The monks heard the men who tend elephants
and who tend horses blaming, rebuking and criticising thus and informed
the Blessed One of the matter.

The Blessed One then ordered the monks, "Behold monks.
a pandaka is one who is not to be ordained. Monks should not give
them ordination and those who have been ordained must be made to disrobe"
(Vinaya, Vol. 4, pp. 141-142).

This story shows the Buddha's concern to uphold the public image of the
sangha and his wish that his followers should not be seen to violate
commonly accepted standards of behaviour.25
A number of cultural assumptions underlie the elements of this story and
the Buddha's concluding pronouncement. Firstly, the fact that the pandaka
monk is described as approaching in succession "young monks," "large, stout
novices" and a presumably coarse group of "men who tend elephants and horses,"
reflects a conjuncture of notions about types of sexually attractive men
still found in sections of both Thai and Western homosexual subcultures
today. Secondly, while the individual monk in question violated sangha
discipline, the Buddha betrays an assumption that all pandaka are
likewise unsuited to monastic life when he prohibits any further ordinations
of pandaka and orders those already in the sangha to be expelled.
Kathoeys are often regarded in a similar way in Thailand today,
commonly being stereotyped as untrustworthy prostitutes with hyperactive
sex drives. These contemporary Thai stereotypes of kathoeys have
precedents in descriptions of pandaka in Pali. Zwilling (1992:205)
notes that the view of pandaka as "lascivious, shameless, unfilial
and vacillating" was reflected in early Buddhist literature,
According to Buddhaghosa pandakas are full of
defiling passions (ussanakilesa); their lusts are unquenchable (avapasantaparilaha);
and they are dominated by their libido (parilahavegabhibhuta) and
the desire for lovers just like prostitutes (vesiya) and coarse
young girls (thulakumarika) (Samantapasadika III, p.1042).
Thus the pandaka . . . was considered in some degree to share the
behaviour and psychological characteristics of the stereotypical "bad"
woman.
It might be contended that what the Buddha's ban on the ordination of pandaka
reflects is concern about the disruptive effect of effeminate transvestite
homosexuals in an order of celibate, predominantly heterosexual monks.
However, the above piece emphasises homosexuality, indeed passive homosexual
sex, as the violation and source of disruption. What the above-quoted section
of the Vinaya suggests is a conflation of passive homosexual sex
with demasculinisation, i.e. being a pandaka. Leaving aside the
ethical misconduct of the individual pandaka monk, what the Buddha's
subsequent comprehensive ban on the ordination of pandaka indicates
is a concern to exclude non-masculine men from the sangha. The ban
also shows that a characteristic regarded as defining a man as non-masculine
or a pandaka is a preference for certain types of homosexual sex.
These same attitudes remain prevalent in Thailand today. A man who is known
to be the receptive partner in anal sex may be labelled a kathoey.
i.e. non-masculine, even if he is not effeminate or a transvestite, but
the inserter in anal sex rarely suffers such stigmatisation. The above-cited
scriptural references to penetrative homosexual sex (i.e. methunadhamma
defined in "masculine" or penetrative terms), while proscriptive, do not
imply that the men who engaged in such sexual behaviour with the pandaka
monk jeopardised their masculinity. In other words, the canon appears to
inscribe attitudes to male-male sex and masculinity that parallel views
widely held in contemporary Thailand.

The ban on the ordination of pandaka or kathoeys has continued
until today. In 1989 Khamhuno reported a meeting of the Mahatherasamakhom
or Sangha Council, the supreme governing body of the Thai sangha,
at which the matter of "sexually perverted (wiparit thang phet)
persons being ordained as monks" was raised (Khamhuno 1989:37). The Sangha
Council discussed the matter after news reports of the ordination of a
kathoey and local criticism of the abbot who permitted the ordination.
In reporting the Council's meeting, Khamhuno reaffirmed the Buddha's edict
that pandaka should not be ordained, writing, "In fact, the Vinaya
and the laws of the Mahatherasamakhom clearly specify that people who are
kathoeys or pandaka are prohibited from being ordained."
adding that pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka are also prohibited
from being ordained as novices (ibid.).

Khamhuno comments that when a man presents for ordination he is ceremonially
asked a number of questions in Pali by the ordaining preceptor. Among these
is the question, purisosi—"You are a man, are you not?" The ordinand
is then expected to answer with the affirmative expression, amabhante.
Khamhuno says that this question is meant to determine whether the ordinand
is in fact a man, not a person with two genders (ubhatobyanjanaka)
or a kathoey (pandaka), and justifies the ban on gays in
the sangha on the basis of having to prevent people who can bring
the order into disrepute from being ordained.26
By equating gays with kathoeys and hermaphrodites and affirming
the ban on their ordination, Khamhuno indicates that the crux of the prohibition
on their ordination is, as suggested above, the expression of inappropriate
or inadequate masculinity. The ordination question, "You are a man, are
you not?" thus refers to more than biological male sex, also including
the culturally defined gender notion of masculinity. In other words, the
ordination question could be translated as You are a 'real' man, are you
not?"

That deficient masculinity lies at the core of the notion of pandaka
(and also of kathoey), and is the basis of discriminatory attitudes
towards this group in the Buddhist scriptures, is further demonstrated
in sections of the Vinaya where pandaka are described as
having a spiritually inferior status to men. For example, Volume Four specifies
that if a monk is ill on the day when the patimokkha, the two hundred and
twenty seven clerical rules of conduct, are ritually recited and he is
unable to join in the ceremony he may declare his moral purity, that is,
the fact that he has not violated the clerical code during the past fortnight,
to another monk. This second monk may then convey the ill monk's affirmation
to the assembly of monks at that monastery. But if the monk to whom the
ill monk makes his affirmation has some stigma attaching to him then the
affirmation is invalidated and must be made again to another, ritually
pure monk. The specified types of stigma that invalidate an affirmation
of moral purity include: the fact that a purported monk is only a novice
(i.e. not fully ordained into the order), if the monk is mentally deranged,
a murderer, a non-human (i.e. a spirit) posing as a human or if the monk
is a pandaka ( Vinaya, Vol. 4, pp. 194-195). That is, according
to the Vinaya, pandaka, along with murderers, the mentally
deranged, non-humans, etc., are spiritually defective and lack the ritual
authority required in order to convey an ill monk's affirmation of moral
purity to the assembly of monks.

Furthermore, in the section of the Vinaya dealing with ceremonial
seating arrangements for monks. The Buddha permits monks to sit together
with other monks in a specified arrangement but explicitly prohibits them
from sitting together with pandaka, women and ubhatobyanjanaka,
indicating that he considered it spiritually inappropriate for monks to
sit with members of these three non-masculine groups (Vinaya, Vol.
7, p. 84).

3. CONTEMPORARY THAI VIEWS ON HOMOSEXUALITY

Scriptural attitudes to pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka are
not uniform and depending on which sections of the Tipitaka are
referred to or emphasised can lead to differing ethical positions on homosexuality,
some compassionate and others invidious. Indeed, two broad schools of thought
on homosexuality are current among contemporary Thai Buddhist writers,
one accepting, the other unaccepting. The key factor differentiating the
divergent stances is the author's conceptualisation of the origin of homosexuality.
Those who maintain that homosexuality is a condition which is outside the
conscious control of homosexuals and has its origins in past misdeeds take
a liberal stance, while those who maintain that it is a wilful violation
of ethical and natural principles take an antagonistic position.

Kammic Accounts of the Origins of Homosexuality

Bunmi has provided a detailed exposition of the traditional kammic explanation
of homosexuality and the ethical corollaries of this account. Like most
contemporary Thai Buddhist authors, Bunmi translates pandaka into
Thai as kathoey, which he appears to understand in its more traditional
sense of primarily denoting an assumed gender imbalance and only secondarily
denoting homosexuality. In places he uses the terms rak-ruam-phet
(homosexuality) and "gay" when he wishes to focus more on sexuality than
gender, but in general Bunmi does not distinguish being homosexual from
being a kathoey, conflating sexuality with gender.

Bunmi lists a number of types of sexual misconduct in a past life that
can lead a person to engage in homosexual activity in their current life.
These misdeeds include committing adultery, being a prostitute, sexually
interfering with one's children or being sexually irresponsible, such as
a man not caring for a woman who becomes pregnant by him (Bunmi 1986:120-
121). Bunmi emphasises that the strength of old kamma (Thai: kam kao)
generated by such transgressions cannot be counteracted and its consequences
have to be accepted,

Even if brought up well in this life or born
into a high family or as the child of royalty, no matter how prestigious
their background, they [people who committed sexual offences in a past
life] will not be able to stop themselves from becoming mixed up in sexual
matters from an early age. No matter how much their parents criticise them
and no matter how much they are instructed, they will still easily act
wrongly with regard to sex and will not see it as dangerous but rather
as something ordinary (ibid.:121).

Criticising popular Thai ideas on the origins of homosexuality, Bunmi denies
that being a kathoey is caused by raising a boy with girls or by
raising a girl with boys, maintaining that individuals in the categories
of human beings, animals and "lower level spirits" (phi-sang-thewada)
are born as kathoeys because of causal factors in their past lives
(ibid.:39-41). Buddhist views that being a pandaka/kathoey is a
type of stigma that marks a person as deficient are clearly shown by Bunmi's
note that the Abhidhammapitaka (no reference cited) lists the kammic
causes of being born with a disability. He maintains that being a kathoey
is included in this list of disabilities along with being born or becoming
physically disabled, being mute, mad, blind, deaf and intellectually disabled
(ibid.:265). The Buddha prescribed that people with any of these disabilities,
plus those with serious illnesses and diseases, should be barred from ordination.

Bunmi maintains that sex-determined kamma is of two types, that
which manifests from birth and leads to hermaphroditism and that which
manifests after birth and leads to transvestism, transsexualism and homosexuality
(ibid. :287). He says those who are born hermaphrodites cannot attain nibbana
in this life but those who become kathoeys after birth can attain
nibbana if they apply their discriminating intelligence (Thai: panya)
to the task of spiritual liberation (ibid. :294). Bunmi also says that
kathoeys tend to be born in societies in which sexual misconduct
is prevalent because such societies provide appropriate environments for
them to expend their kammic debts (ibid.:301).

Significantly, Bunmi maintains that actions and desires which have an
involuntary cause in the kammic consequences of past sexual misconduct
do not themselves accrue any future kammic consequences. They are the outworking
of past kamma, not sources for the accumulation of future kamma.
According to Bunmi, homosexual activity and the desire to engage in homosexual
activity fall into this category and are not sinful and do not accrue kammic
consequences. In a similar vein, he says that,

Changing one's sex is not sinful (Pali: ducarita).
Consequently the intention to change one's sex cannot have any ill kammic
consequences. But sexual misconduct (Thai: phit-kam) is sinful and
can lead to consequences in a subsequent birth (ibid. :306).

In Bunmi's account the only sexual activities that accumulate future kammic
consequences are traditionally sanctioned forms of heterosexual misconduct.
Bunmi says that sexual misconduct with a member of the opposite sex has
kammic consequences because, "it is like stealing, because the person responsible
for that person has not given their permission" (ibid. :308). Bunmi does
not explicitly refer to female kathoeys and his examples of sexual
misconduct that lead to being born a kathoey are moral infractions
committed by men. His use of a proprietary simile, comparing adultery to
theft, appears to reflect a view of women as men's property. It is also
noteworthy that in Thai the words used to describe the results of a wife
or child being sexually interfered with are very similar to the terms used
to describe the results of being robbed. Bunmi describes both robbery and
adultery as kert sia hai—"causing a loss or damage (to wealth, reputation,
etc.)" (ibid.).

The sexual activities that Bunmi says Buddhism classes as sins are precisely
those which in traditional Thai society, and presumably also in ancient
India, were regarded as dishonouring and sullying the female victims and
their male relatives or spouses, namely, adultery, rape and sex with a
girl who has not been given in marriage. In this cultural context two men
having sex does not cause any equivalent damage or loss (Thai: sia hai),
except perhaps to their reputations as "real men" should they be discovered.
But when a man is cuckolded or his wife is raped then his property has
been interfered with and, in Bunmi's words, an action equivalent to a theft
has occurred. Similarly, having sex with a girl who has not been given
in marriage, that is, ceremonially handed over from her father to her husband,
is also to interfere with a man's traditional property, in this case his
daughter, and may make the young woman difficult to marry off.

There is therefore a close relationship between, on the one hand, those
sexual activities which Buddhist teachings proscribe for lay people and
which are interpreted as incurring kammic debts and, on the other hand,
the traditional sexual mores and gender roles of Asian societies. A range
of physical gender imbalances and sexual activities and inclinations which
slip outside these traditional norms are considered to have a neutral kammic
impact and are not regarded as evil or sinful. Significantly, it is violations
of tabus and mores relating to potentially reproductive sexual behaviour
which are proscribed in Bunmi's traditionalist Buddhist account, while
behaviours and conditions without reproductive consequences, including
homosexuality, are not regarded as sinful. However, this situation changes
markedly in some more recent Thai Buddhist interpretations which identify
homosexual behaviour as most definitely sinful.

Compassion for Homosexuals in Traditional Thai Buddhist Accounts

Prasok is another writer who says that kamma is the root cause of
homosexuality but he also believes that the Buddhist principle of anicca
or impermanence plays a causal role. Prasok calls homosexuality one of
the "perversities of nature" (khwam-wiparit khorng thammachat) and
compares homosexuals to calves born with five legs, saying they are strange
but still part of natural processes. He maintains that because of the play
of the principle of impermanence the factors determining masculinity and
femininity are incomplete or mixed in some individuals, leading to physical
and psycho-sexual differences. Prasok's views lead him to adopt a compassionate
if condescending view of homosexual people when he writes, "I am not criticising
anyone [i.e. homosexuals] at all because I see that this proceeds according
to the outworking of each individual's old kamma" (Prasok 1989:10).

Prasok adds that in a previous birth all people who are now kathoeys
have had to climb the spike tree of hell (Thai: ton-ngiw). After
committing sexual sins they were reborn in hell where they were chased
by vicious beasts, their only escape being to climb a tree with spikes
in its trunks and branches which pierced their limbs and bodies as they
clambered up it. Prasok says these people suffered great torment and cried
out "Oh! Oh! I've learnt my lesson," and because of the suffering kathoeys
have purportedly endured in hell he feels in no position to condemn them,
adding that you cannot criticise people because of their kamma.

Bunmi's view on the kammic origins of homosexuality and being a kathoey
lead him to a similar compassionate but condescending stance. Bunmi says,

Society in Thailand and in almost every other country
in the world does not really accept kathoeys. This is because they
do not know the real truth about the causes of becoming a kathoey,
which are extremely pitiable (Bunmi 1986:42).

People who study and understand the Abhidhamma
will not laugh at or ridicule kathoeys . . . but rather will sympathise
with them and feel sorry for them and find ways to help them to the extent
that they can be helped. They will point out the ways of dealing more intelligently
with life's problems so that kathoeys don't repeat their old mistakes
that will lead to great sadness and sorrow in the future (ibid. :40).

Bunmi comments that Thai people generally laugh at kathoeys but
they do not know that "those who laugh at and ridicule kathoeys
were themselves kathoeys in a past life" (ibid.:251). Bunmi claims
that in some past life everyone has been born a kathoey because
everyone has been guilty of sexual misconduct at some point in their multitude
of previous existences. He maintains,
If they studied the causes of being a kathoey,
the life of the mind. . . . all those who like to laugh at and ridicule
kathoeys would not be able to laugh any more. Because the very people
who laugh at kathoeys were themselves once kathoeys. Absolutely
everyone without exception has been a kathoey because we have gone
through innumerable cycles of birth and death, and we don't know how many
times we have been kathoeys in past lives or how many more times
we may be kathoeys in the future (ibid. :258).
Bunmi here is arguing that kathoeys should be treated with tolerance
and compassion, Buddhist virtues regarded as meritorious, and he points
out that contemporary Thai society often fails to reflect the ethics of
its ostensible Buddhist heritage in the case of kathoeys and gays.
But while compassionate, Bunmi's views do not lead to full acceptance of
transvestism or homosexuality because he holds up kathoeys as examples
of what happens to people who breach codes of sexual conduct. Even compassionate
Buddhist interpreters still regard being homosexual or a kathoey
as a condition inherently defined by suffering, citing the lack of acceptance,
social opprobrium and the ensuing problems these people suffer. It is the
perceived suffering of kathoeys and homosexuals that leads traditionalist
Buddhist interpreters such as Bunmi and Prasok to regard this variety of
sexuality as the kammic consequence of past sexual misdeeds. These interpreters
do not consider the possibility that the suffering endured by homosexuals
may not be inherent in their sexuality but rather may result from the intolerant
social environment in which they live. Following the kammic account of
the cause of homosexuality, the suffering of homosexuals can only be endured,
not ameliorated, because it is interpreted as resulting from the individuals'
own past misdeeds and will continue until the kammic consequences
of those misdeeds have been expunged. Bunmi and Prasok construe homosexuals'
suffering as a reminder and a moral lesson on the unfortunate consequences
of sexual misconduct. Kathoeys may be pitiable and worthy of sympathy
but in the kammic account they are still the products of immorality, albeit
in a past life, and in an ideal cosmos populated only by moral people they
would cease to exist.

AIDS and Anti-Homosexual Intolerance in Thailand

The kammic account of the origins of homosexuality is not the only Buddhist
interpretation current in Thailand. Since the arrival of HIV/AIDS in Thailand
in the mid-1980s a number of Buddhist writers have presented strongly anti-homosexual
views. These more recent critical positions consider homosexuality to be
a conscious violation of sexual mores and therefore ethically reprehensible.
As in the West, which I suspect to be the source of many of the more extreme
anti-homosexual arguments presented in Thailand in recent years, HIV/AIDs
has led to the foregrounding of subcurrents of homophobia in Thai culture
and society.

The critics continue to conflate gender and sexuality issues, interpreting
homosexuality as a consequence of gender imbalance or perversion. However,
in the light of the focus on male homosexual activity as a mode of transmission
of HIV infection during the early years of the pandemic, Thai Buddhist
critics concentrated more on the sexuality of people identified as kathoeys
than on these persons' assumed gender imbalance. It is interesting that
this inversion of the traditional structuring of ideas of gender and sexuality
in the notion of the kathoey, placing homosexuality rather than
gender at the focus of the concept, was associated with a shift in Buddhist
attitudes from relative tolerance to condemnation of homosexuality. AIDS
thus had an important cultural impact in Thailand, contributing to shifts
in the understanding of what constitutes a kathoey and leading to
increased stigmatisation of male homosexuality.

4. CONCLUSION

Buddhism is a complex tradition and there is no single canonical or scripturally
sanctioned position on homosexuality. Rather, the Pali scriptures contain
a number of divergent trends which different interpreters can use to develop
views on homosexuality that range from the sympathetic to the antagonistic.
Whether an interpreter adopts a sympathetic or a critical stance depends
on whether he or she regards the cause of homosexuality as lying outside
the individual, in old kamma build up in a previous life, or in
the individual's own supposedly immoral conduct.

It is interesting that the latter, intolerant view is the more recent
and, paradoxically, is presented by some authors who are otherwise identified
as progressive. Buddhist authors like Phra Ratchaworamuni are generally
concerned to reform Thai Buddhism by uprooting institutional corruption,
demythologising traditional Buddhist metaphysics and making the sangha
a purer and more effective cultural vehicle for transmitting traditional
values in the contemporary world. As in the West, public panic about AIDS
and latent fears about homosexuality combined in Thailand in the 1980s
to produce an increasingly explicit intolerance of homosexuality in some
quarters. But AIDS alone does not explain the vehemence of the recent Buddhist
attacks on homosexuality. In my 1989 book Buddhism, Legitimation and
Conflict: The Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism I described
how reformist interpretations of Buddhism have been associated with a de-emphasis
on kamma as an explanation for why society and people are the way
they are. This has opened the way for the development of an interventionist
Buddhist social theory in Thailand which focuses more on people's capacity
to change their circumstances than on the extent to which their current
life conditions are kammically pre-determined. From an ethical standpoint,
interventionist and politically progressive Buddhist theories place more
emphasis on individuals' responsibility for their own future. However,
in the context of the AIDS panic in the second half of the 1980s and a
widespread if previously diffuse anti-homosexual sentiment in Thailand,
the new reformist accounts of Buddhism fostered the development of a more
focussed anti-homosexual polemic.

Reformist and modernist trends in Thai Buddhism are often regarded as
politically progressive because of their opposition to the historical alignment
of the sangha with the authoritarian centralised state and military
dictatorship. On the other hand, traditional metaphysical views of Buddhism
which emphasised the assumed determining power of kamma are criticised
by reformists as intellectually backward and politically conservative.
Paradoxically, however, the reformist, politically progressive interpretations
of Buddhism are often linked with a strident moralism and a vehement anti-homosexual
stance unprecedented in recent Thai history. While, on the other hand,
the conservative traditionalists who still believe in the determining power
of kamma take a more laissez faire approach to issues such
as homosexuality.

Thailand in the second half of the 1980s thus provided an interesting
example of how changing intellectual and social conditions can bring a
previously neglected area of social and cultural life to prominence and
invest it with new meanings and significance. Thai history in the 1980s
also shows that political progressivism, intellectual modernisation and
ethical liberalism are not necessarily related trends and can move independently
and at different rates. Indeed, the very factors which lead to perceived
political progress and expanded socio-economic opportunities for some sectors
can simultaneously lead to regressive and discriminatory developments in
other spheres which restrict and deny opportunities to other sectors of
society.

Nevertheless, the impact of Buddhist authors' anti-homosexual rhetoric
appears to have been relatively small. To a large measure this has been
because the 1980s issue of homosexual men as the purported source of AIDS
has all but been forgotten in the 1990s as the magnitude of the problem
of heterosexual transmission of HIV in Thailand has become apparent.27 The vehement anti-homosexual rhetoric
in Thailand in the second half of the 1980s has not led to any noticeable
increase in publicly expressed intolerance or discrimination against male
homosexuals beyond that which already existed. Paradoxically, the brief
period of public anxiety about homosexual men as vectors of HIV/AIDS and
the associated religiously authorised criticisms of kathoeys may
in fact have contributed to the consolidation of gay identity among increasing
numbers of Thai homosexual men and not only because of the public prominence
given to homosexuality.

There has been considerable discussion among Western gay/lesbian analysts
about the historical shift in Western societies from viewing homosexuality
as a behaviour to a defining characteristic of a type of person, i.e. the
homosexual (see Halperin 1990). The changing relative emphases on gender
and sexuality in the notion of kathoey appear to be leading to a
similar shift in Thailand. When the class of people identified as kathoeys
were primarily defined by their assumed gender imbalance then homosexuality
was viewed as a behaviour that "men" as well as kathoeys may engage
in. But as kathoeys have come to be defined more by their sexuality
then the idea of the homosexual as a class of person has also gained currency
in Thailand. This change is reflected in the already noted heterosexual
use of the term kathoey to refer derogatorily to homosexual men
and the idea that even though a gay man may look like a "man," he is really
a kathoey underneath.

There is no doubt that Western notions of the homosexual as a type of
person have influenced Thai conceptions of sexuality. However, in Thailand
the notions of homosexual personhood and gay identity have developed from
a specifically Thai base. The pre-existing notion of the kathoey
as a type of person defined by their unconventional gender/sexuality has
provided an indigenous foundation for the development of new sexual identities
that often appear to mirror those in the West. The view of some Thai critics
that gayness in Thailand results from corrupting Western influences or
mimicking of Western "sexual fashions" (see Sulak 1984:121) is therefore
mistaken, but so is the perception of many Western visitors to Thailand
that gay identity there is an exact mirror of Western sexualities.

Despite their discriminatory character, the fact that the Buddhist-based
diatribes published in the light of HIV/AIDS focussed on homosexual men's
unconventional sexuality rather than their ascribed cross-gender behaviour
contributed to the consolidation of notions of homosexual identity in Thailand.
In the 1990s Thai homosexual men tend to be defined as much if not more
by their sexuality as by their assumed breach of gender norms, and one
unintended consequence of the 1980s criticisms may be the firmer establishment
of homosexuality and gayness as acknowledged focuses of sexual and social
existence in Thailand.

APPENDIX

Malalasekera's interesting summary of the legends surrounding Vakkali Thera
(Malalasekera 1960:799-800) is reproduced in full below.

"He belonged to a brahmin family of Savatthi and became proficient in
the three Vedas. After he once saw the Buddha he could never tire of looking
at him, and followed him about. In order to be closer to him he became
a monk, and spent all his time, apart from meals and bathing, in contemplating
the Buddha's person. One day the Buddha said to him, 'The sight of my foul
body is useless; he who sees the dhamma, he it is that seeth me'
(yo kho dhammam passati so mam passati; yo mam passati so dhammam passati).28 But even then Vakkali would not leave
the Buddha till, on the last day of the rains, the Buddha commanded him
to depart. Greatly grieved, Vakkali sought the precipices of Gijjhakuta.
The Buddha, aware of this, appeared before him and uttered a stanza; then
stretching out his hand, he said: 'Come monk.'29
Filled with joy, Vakkali rose in the air pondering the Buddha's words and
realised arahantship.30

"According to the Theragatha Commentary,31
when Vakkali was dismissed by the Buddha he lived on Gijjhakuta, practising
meditation, but could not attain insight because of his emotional nature
(saddha). The Buddha then gave him a special exercise, but neither
could he achieve this and, from lack of food, he suffered from cramp. The
Buddha visited him and uttered a verse to encourage him. Vakkali spoke
four verses32 in reply
and, conjuring up insight, won arahantship. Later, in the assembly of monks
the Buddha declared him foremost among those of implicit faith (saddhadhimuttanam).33 In the Parayanavagga34
the Buddha is represented as holding Vakkali up to Pingiya as an example
of one who won emancipation through faith.

"The Samyutta account 35
gives more details and differs in some respects from the above. There,
Vakkali fell ill while on his way to visit the Buddha at Rajagaha, and
was carried in a litter to a potter's shed in Rajagaha. There, at his request,
the Buddha visited him and comforted him. He questioned Vakkali who assured
him that he had no cause to reprove him with regard to morals (silato);
his only worry was that he had not been able to see the Buddha earlier.
The Buddha told him that seeing the dhamma was equivalent to seeing
him, and because Vakkali had realised the dhamma, there would be
no hereafter for him. After the Buddha had left, Vakkali asked his attendants
to take him to Kalasila on Isigili. The Buddha was on Gijjhakuta and was
told by two devas that Vakkali was about to 'obtain release.' The
Buddha send [sic] word to him: "Fear not, Vakkali, your dying will not
be evil.' Vakkali rose from his bed to receive the Buddha's message, and
sending word to the Buddha that he had no desire or love for the body or
the other khandhas [aggregates or factors making up human existence], he
drew a knife and killed himself. The Buddha went to see his body, and declared
that he had obtained nibbana and that Mara's attempts to
find the consciousness of Vakkali would prove fruitless.

"The Commentary adds that Vakkali was conceited and blind to his remaining
faults. He thought he was a khinasava [one whose mind is freed from
mental obsessions], and that he might rid himself of bodily pains by death.
However, the stab with the knife caused him such pain that at the moment
of dying he realised his puthujana [worldly, unliberated] state
and, putting forth great effort, attained arahantship.

"His resolve to become chief among the saddhadhimuttas had been
made in the time of the Padumuttara Buddha, when he saw a monk also named
Vakkali similarly honoured by the Buddha."36

Gombrich, Richard, Theravada Buddhism, A Social History from Ancient
Benares to Modern Colombo, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1988.

Halperin, David M., One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other
Essays on Greek Love, Routledge New York, 1990.

Isaramuni, Withi Porng-kan Rok Et (The Method to Protect Against
AIDS), Isaramuni Pointing the Way Series Vol. 34, Work to Revive the
Dhamma for the Return of Ethics and the Supramundane, Liang Chiang
Press, Bangkok, 2532 (1989).

Jackson, Peter A., Buddhadasa: A Buddhist Thinker for the Modern
World, the Siam Society, Bangkok, 1988.

Zwilling, Leonard, "Homosexuality as Seen in Indian Buddhist Texts."
in José Ignacio Cabezón (ed.), Buddhism Sexuality, and
Gender, State University of New York Press, New York, 1992.

1 Thanks to Eric Allyn
and Ross McMurtrie for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this
article. Pali is the classical language of the Theravada Buddhist tradition
of Thailand, Sri Lanka, Burma, Laos and Cambodia and in this article I
use the Pali rather than the Sanskrit forms of Buddhist terms, e.g. kamma
instead of karma, nibbana instead of nirvana, etc.
Note also that Thailand uses the Buddhist Era (B.E.) calendar and all Thai
language publications are dated according to this system, which begins
with the traditionally ascribed year of the Buddha's death or parinibbana
in 543 B.C. To calculate the Christian Era year from the Buddhist Era year
subtract 543, e.g. B.E. 2540=A.D. 1997. In this article I also follow the
Thai system of referring to authors by their first names rather than by
their surnames. In Thailand lists of Thai persons' names are always arranged
alphabetically by first name rather than by surname, a practice that follows
from the fact that family names were only introduced universally in the
early decades of the twentieth century. However, Thais also respect Western
custom and list the names of non-Thai persons alphabetically by surname.

2 Zwilling (1992:208) notes
that there are no explicit references to homosexuality in the Suttapitaka,
the collection of the Buddha's sermons or discourses.

3 I refer to the Thai translation
of the Tipitaka in this article because the selection of Thai terms
used to translate Pali often reflects Thai cultural values, providing insight
into the translators' views and preconceptions. For example, the Pali term
pandaka is sometimes translated directly by the equivalent Thai
technical term bandor, while at other times it is translated by
the colloquial term kathoey. All translations in this paper are
my own.

4 Zwilling (1992:209) notes
that in his commentary on the Cakkavattisutta of the Digha Nikaya,
Buddhaghosa takes the expression "wrong conduct" (miccha dhamma),
the cause of humanity's progressive degeneration in Buddhist legend, as
meaning "the sexual desire of men for men and women for women." However,
the Pali canon itself does not suggest this reading.

7 It is possible that pandaka
is derived from the Pali term anda, which variously means "egg"
or "testicles," and may originally have had the sense of male reproductive
deficiency or incapacity. Monier-Williams (n.d. :580) defines the cognate
Sanskrit terms pandra and pandraka as "eunuch or impotent
man." Zwilling (1992:204) says that the term is of obscure origin and may
ultimately be derived from apa + anda + ka, "without
testicles." He adds, however, that this should not be taken literally as
meaning that a pandaka was necessarily an eunuch but, rather should
"be interpreted metaphorically as we do in English when it is said of a
weak or pusillanimous person that he (or she) 'has no balls.'" Zwilling
adds that the term pandaka used in the canon could not have meant
a eunuch because, with the exception of the congenitally impotent, accounts
of pandaka describe a man who is capable of "either erection, ejaculation,
or the experience of sexual pleasure."

8 The fact that vaginal
intercourse is not listed as a possibility for pandaka indicates
that they are biologically male.

9Phra Ratchaworamuni
(Pali: Rajavaramuni) is the former ecclesiastical title of the monk Phra
Prayut Payutto. His current ecclesiastical title is Phra Thepwethi
(Pali: Devavedhi).

10 Zwilling (1992:206)
cites Buddhaghosa as providing an account of ubhatobyanjanaka in
his Abhidharmakos'a that is almost identical to that provided by
Bunmi.

11 The popular American
science-fiction and fantasy writer, Ursula Le Guin, describes a planet
inhabited by such beings in her award winning novel The Left Hand of
Darkness.

12 This gloss is provided
in a list of terms written either by the Thai translators of the Tipitaka
or the editorial team and was not part of the original scripture.

13 According to Zwilling
(1992:205), pandaka refers to men who "lack maleness," not to women,
denoting a man who "fails to meet the normative sex role expectations for
an adult male." This male-focussed orientation of the term could perhaps
be expected to follow if, as Zwilling suggests, the derivation of the term
is indeed "without testicles." The Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary
does refer to a feminine derivative form of pandaka, itthipandika,
as occurring in the Vinaya (Rhys Davids 1975:404), but Bunmi's extension
of the term to denote women who fail to meet the normative sex role expectations
for an adult woman is perhaps not strictly canonical and may be influenced
by the common tendency to translate pandaka into Thai as kathoey.
While in common Thai usage kathoey usually denotes a non-normative
male, the term is occasionally used to denote a non-normative female and
Thai dictionaries usually do not assign a determinate gender, whether male
or female, to the term. The Royal Institute Thai language dictionary (1982:72)
defines a kathoey as "A person who has both male and female genitals;
a person whose mind (psychology) and behaviour are the opposite of their
[biological] sex." In his Photjananukrom Thai (Thai dictionary)
Manit Manitcharoen (1983:70) explicitly defines kathoey as denoting
either a man or a woman and also attempts to correct popular Thai misconceptions
with his definition. "Homosexuals or the sexually perverted are not kathoeys.
The characteristic of a kathoey is someone who cross-dresses (lakka-phet)
a male who likes to act and dress like a woman and has a mind like a woman,
or a female who likes to act and dress like a man and who has a mind like
a man."

14 Zwilling (1992:204)
traces these five types of pandaka to Buddhaghosa's Samantapasadika,
Asanga 's Abhidharmasamuccaya and Yas'omitra's commentary to the
Abhidharmakos'a, adding that a similar list occurs in Hindu brahmanical
medical and legal treatises.

15 Zwilling (1992:204)
says that this type of pandaka "attains ejaculation through some
special effort or artifice." Bunmi's description of opakkamika as
eunuchs appears to follow another type of pandaka that Zwilling
says is identified by Yas'omitra, the lunapandaka, which implies
a man who has been intentionally castrated.

16 Zwilling (1992:204)
cites Buddhaghosa as saying that a pakkhapandaka "becomes temporarily
impotent for fourteen 'black days' of the month but regains his potency
during the fourteen 'white days,' that is, from the new to the full moon."

17 According to Zwilling
(1992:204) Buddhaghosa describes a napumsaka as "one who is congenitally
impotent."

18 For example, in 1988
the prominent Thai social critic, Sulak Sivaraksa, criticised the administrative
style of former Prime Minister, General Prem Tinsulanonda, in playing one
wing of the Thai military off against another in order to remain in power,
as being like that of a eunuch (Thai: khanthi) and a kathoey
(Sulak 2531:125). General Prem has never married and is rumoured to be
homosexual but as a career soldier, Korean War veteran and former head
of the Thai Army he could not be described as matching the traditional
Thai conception of an effeminate, cross-dressing kathoey.

19 According to the conservative
Theravada tradition followed in Thailand, only a congregation that includes
nuns correctly ordained according to that tradition has the authority to
ordain another woman as a nun. With no correctly ordained Theravada nuns
to be found in any modern country, it is impossible for the female sangha
to be reconstituted.

20 I thank Dr. Louis
Gabaude for pointing out that Prasok and Khamhuno are pen names of the
same author.

21 Note that being born
female is here represented as kammic punishment for a man's sexual misconduct
in a previous life.

22 The Vakkali story
is recounted in a number of texts and has several versions. Malalasekera's
(1960:799-800) useful summary of the different versions is included at
the end of this article.

23 The Pali term here
is dusetha, which variously means "To spoil, ruin; to injure, hurt;
to defile, pollute; to defame" (Rhys Davids, 1975:328). Zwilling (1992:207)
prefers "to defile." However, the Thai language version translated here
renders dusetha as prathutsarai, a term that means "to harm,
injure or assault." The Thai translators appear to have understood the
text as describing the pandaka as calling on the young monks to
perform anal sex on him, and their choice of the Thai term prathutsarai
appears to reflect an assumption that anal sex is associated with suffering
assault.

24 The laymen that the
pandaka monk incited to have sex with him would not have been breaching
the clerical code of celibacy and so the use of the term prathutsarai
here should probably be interpreted as "to assault" rather than "to commit
an offence," presumably referring more to the assumed violence (to manhood?)
of the homosexual act than to the violation of a code of conduct.

25 Buddhism, the middle
path, has always been concerned with the maintenance of social order and
since the Buddha's time the sangha has never claimed to provide
a universal vehicle for the spiritual liberation of all individuals in
society, explicitly excluding those who are considered to reflect badly
on the monkhood in terms of prevailing social norms and attitudes. Pandaka
are one of the groups excluded from ordination into the sangha and
given the still common Thai conflation of pandaka/kathoey/homosexual/gay,
homosexual men are also regarded as being excluded from the sangha.

26 Other authorities
cite a different origin for the ceremonial ordination question purisosi,
referring to the Buddhist legend of a naga or serpent disguising
itself as a man in order to obtain ordination into the sangha.

27 Chris Lyttleton (1995)
notes that, at least in many rural areas of Thailand, officially sponsored
safe sex education programs conducted in the early 1990s have all but ignored
unprotected homosexual sex as a risk activity, focussing almost solely
on heterosexual sex. This further demonstrates the marginal nature of homosexuality
in Thailand. In the early years of the pandemic homosexual men were isolated
and stigmatised as the supposed source of HIV infection. But as the heterosexual
population has become threatened in Thailand homosexual men, who are at
just as great a risk of infection as heterosexual men, have tended to be
ignored in the official safe sex campaigns.

29 The Buddha is often
quoted in the canon as using this brief expression to accept monks into
the sangha.

30Manorathapurani,
Anguttara Commentary (S.H.B.) i. 140f.; the Apadana account
(Apadana ii. 465f.) is similar. It says that the Buddha spoke to
him from the foot of the rock. Vakkali jumped down to meet the Buddha,
a depth of many cubits, but he alighted unhurt. It was on this occasion
that the Buddha declared his eminence among those of implicit faith; also
Dhammapadatthakatha iv. 118f. The Dhammapadatthakatha reports
three verses uttered by the Buddha in which he assures Vakkali that he
will help him and look after him.